Skip to main content

tv   All In With Chris Hayes  MSNBC  April 18, 2014 12:00am-1:01am PDT

12:00 am
the return of the neocons or a complete surrender to the libertarian right? clearly this is a party in need of more options. and that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. the standoff in nevada might be over, but armed militia members remain on site. and today senate majority leader harry reid called those supporters of rancher and conservative hero cliven bundy domestic terrorists. an event sponsored by the las vegas review journal, reid had this to say about the armed supporters who rallied in support of bundy's right to not pay federal grazing fees for his cattle. "they're nothing more than domestic terrorists. i repeat, what happened there was domestic terrorism." those comments mark an escalation in rhetoric from
12:01 am
reid, who's been singled out in the conservative media as the villain in the cliven bundy story, a story that, let's not forget, involves cliven bundy refusing to pay federal grazing fees for 20 years, owing the government about a million dollars, and successfully warding off government collection of his cattle by the bureau of land management. by inviting a bunch of gun-toting supporters to essentially stand guard near his ranch. some of those supporters, whom harry reid referred to as domestic terrorists, are still there, awaiting any further potential government action. and some, according to reuters, are looking for another fight. reuters reporting today, "energized by their success, bundy's supporters are already talking about whether -- where else they can exercise armed defiance. in the days since the showdown right-wing websites have begun searching for other bundys." but don't expect the original to fade away anytime soon. because you see, cliven bundy is the perfect mascot for anti-obama conservatism.
12:02 am
>> the grievance industry basically says that america is not a fair nation, that the deck is stacked against minorities, women, the poor, gays, atheists, muslims, you name it. and the bad guys are white males, the republican party, and anybody who doesn't buy into the grievance industry. >> the grievance industry. there is nothing conservatives hate more than some freeloader whining about his lot in life and wanting something for nothing at the expense of john q. taxpayer. meet jason greenslate. food stamp recipient. >> thank you, taxpayers. thanks. >> you see, these takers have no respect. and when you have no respect, you get chaos. >> it is much easier to decide to cause trouble when you do not respect people and property. >> here's a perfect example. cliven bundy. for two decades cliven bundy has been grazing his cattle on government-owned land without paying. he now owes the government over
12:03 am
a million dollars in grazing fees. grazing fees which are already so heavily subsidized they're basically welfare to begin with. still, bundy just doesn't want to pay for the land he's using. like almost every other rancher does. instead, when the bureau of land management came to take his cattle that he's been illegally grazing for two decades on federal land, he gathered militia members, states' rights activists to come to his defense, and complained. >> it seems like the united states government is operating with unlimited power over we the people. >> complained that his family was there first and that the federal government had wronged him. the whining paid off. after a tense standoff with federal authorities, the bureau of land management backed off. bundy got his cattle back. cliven bundy is the perfect face of the grievance industry. where many of the most important voices are cliven bundy-level whiners despite the fact they are doing quite well. the koch brothers are now worth over $100 billion.
12:04 am
even if you take the more conservative "forbes" numbers, the koch brothers have just about doubled their personal fortunes since barack obama was first elected. they've never had it so good. and what do they do? they complain. >> mr. koch says this -- "unfortunately the fundamental concepts of dignity, respect, equality before law, and personal freedom are under attack by our nation's own government." >> and they're using part of their vast fortune to air their grievances against the president, spending millions on outside groups to run ads against the president and anyone associated with him. because that's the model. those who have the least to complain about complain the most. like casino tycoon and republican mega donor sheldon adelson. he spent millions and millions to defeat the president in 2012. yet according to "forbes," adelson is worth over $34 billion more today than he was in 2009. meaning his wealth has increased tenfold under obama.
12:05 am
but that apparently is not enough. then there's home depot co-founder ken langone who spent hundreds of thousands of dollars against obama. he's upset he's not getting enough love. >> if we change the faces in the white house, we're on the road to recovery. >> you think it's that simple? >> i believe it's that simple. we need leadership. we need cheerleading. we need encouragement. we need businessmen and fat cats to feel like they're doing something good, not that they're villains and not that they're criminals. >> reporter: langone has doubled his net worth since obama's been president. and it's not just these men. no one has had it better in the obama era than the extraordinarily rich. >> if barack obama begins taxing me more than 50%, which is very possible, i don't know how much longer i'm going to do this. >> so why are some of the wealthiest americans complaining the most? because it works. take big oil. the united states is now on track to become the world's top oil producer. >> oil. the united states is enjoying an energy renaissance.
12:06 am
>> needless to sate oil companies are doing just fine. >> it's a bonanza! and the stocks have been some of the best performers imaginable. >> and yet oil companies across the country continue to complain. >> what the president does, though, is he picks winners and losers. >> here's the national rifle association. before the president even took office the nra warned he wanted to take away people's guns. well, the president's so tough on gun control that in 2010 he earned an f from the anti-gun group brady campaign. erase the second amendment from the bill of rights and excise it from the u.s. constitution. >> since bringing down the world economy, the financial sector has rebounded quite nicely, reaching record profits during the obama presidency. all the while complaining about how hard it is to make a buck. >> rich man's rantings. a silicon valley billionaire says there is a war against america's elite, going so far as to compare it to nazi brutality.
12:07 am
>> you see, the cliven bundy victory in nevada isn't a one-off. his is a story of the obama era. bundy whined, and he won, and then he whined after he won. because there is no grievance industry as powerful as the one conservatives have created on the right. joining me now is former secretary of labor in the clinton administration, robert reich. he's professor of public policy at the university of california berkeley. his documentary "inequality for all" is out now. and nick hanauer. venture capitalist, technology entrepreneur and a partner at second avenue partners. bob, i want to start with you. you served in the clinton administration and the bundy moment is so strikingly similar to me than the kind of high water mark, a very scary at times anti-government militia activism we saw in the mid '90s. >> yes, it is similar. and it also is similar in the sense that a lot of that activism does not take account of the fact that a lot of these people like bundy are living off of federal lands, public goods.
12:08 am
i mean, look at all the corporate welfare. we haven't seen this degree of corporate welfare in years. and yet you have a lot of these people who are -- are basically saying oil and gas, they're not doing well enough. they're already getting $7 billion a year in corporate welfare. so you've got people stirred up and angry because the federal government apparently is too large when what they really ought to be angry about is that the government isn't responsible to regular people, it's responsible to basically the top 1/10 of 1%. >> and i just -- i cannot get over, nick, i can't get over the ceaseless whining. i can't deal with it. it drives me nuts, first of all. just aesthetically. but today when we were looking at these numbers, we were talking about, you know, it's not just cliven bundy, it's these other people too. you look at the numbers. you look at the koch brothers. you look at langone. you look at adelson. you look at all of them. they are making a killing. they have never had it so good. and they are taking that money and sinking it into running ads against the guy who's presided
12:09 am
over this expansion in which all the money has gone into their pockets. >> right. and you know, i understand why this confuses most people. i hate to say, it but it's sort of -- i do understand the psychology of it because unfortunately it takes one to know one. and people misunderstand the motivations of the very rich, people like the koch brothers and frankly people like me, because they think that what we want is more money. and that's not true. money is simply a way of expressing status and power. and that's what these fights are about, is status and power. and so one could be puzzled by a person who makes $300 million a year and then rants because they only make 250 million a year in a world where most people are struggling. but understand, it's not the money that matters. it's how much you make relative to other people. and that's what this fight is about. it's about status. >> but it's also -- it's interesting.
12:10 am
it's both genuine -- and i think cliven bundy and i think, know, ken langone genuinely actually feel -- continuities an act. they actually feel put upon. they actually feel persecuted. >> yes. >> they actually feel like the government has them in their crosshairs. but it's also strategically useful. we just saw what happened with bundy. the guy has lost every single court decision that's come down. he has described, one conservative writer, his case as, quote, legless. and what happened? he whined enough that he got to walk away scot-free so far. >> well, in fact, it's a metaphor for what's happening across the country. and the corporate profits are now a higher percentage of the total economy than they've been since 1920. and yet because corporate america is yelling so much and complaining so much about the obama administration and this terrible economy people don't see the extent to which people at the top, the ceos, for example, and the top executives and the top shareholders are really raking in unbelievable amounts of money.
12:11 am
they don't see that these hands under the table are in the till getting corporate welfare. the louder corporate america, the louder the ceos, the louder wall street yells, the harder it is for america to focus on what's really happening. >> do you agree with that, nick? >> completely. again, economics is how we clothe our social and moral preferences and how we embed status and power. and again, that's what all of this is about. you know, langone wants somebody to tell him, wants the president to tell him that the richer he gets the better off everyone else will be. and because the president has the temerity to challenge that idiotic idea, langone feels attacked. as do the koch brothers and, you know, many of the people like that. >> and there's this -- what you get from this rhetoric on the right, you saw it in the package, you see it from bill o'reilly and you see it from the masters of the universe on wall street, is they hate when people whine. they hate when people want
12:12 am
handouts. they hate when people play the world's smallest violin about how tough their life is. and then, bob, they turn around and do the same thing over and over and over again. >> but the scale of what they're handing out, what they're demanding and getting from the government is so much larger than the scale of what any other individual is getting. i mean, sheldon adelson, for example, not only has his fortune almost doubled under the obama administration but more importantly, what does he want? he wants to ban online gambling. he wants more regulation. more government. i mean, these people are not satisfied simply to do better. they really want government in there helping them to do extraordinarily well. >> that is a key thing, nick, is that we talk about this debate as if it's about bigger or smaller government or anti-government. it is not. it is always, nick, about who government benefits, right? >> exactly. this is simply a grab for status and power. and look, the thing about people who have status and power is that usually that status and power is extraordinarily important to them. that's why they have it.
12:13 am
because they sought it for their whole lives, right? and all they want is more status and power. and it doesn't matter to them how they get it. if government is an instrument of advancing that status and power, then they'll be for it. and if it is an instrument of resisting their status and power, then they hate it. and it is simply -- >> take a look at wall street. i mean, wall street, not a day goes by that wall street doesn't complain about more regulations but actually what wall street is not talking about and nobody can focus on because wall street is so loud is the fact that because everybody on wall street is too big to fail, the biggest banks are too big to fail, they're getting a subsidy that amounts, according to people who have studied it, about $83 billion a year indirectly from the federal government. >> that's right. welfare cowboys love them. robert reich and venture capitalist rick hanauer, thanks very much. >> thanks, chris. president obama made a big, satisfying announcement this
12:14 am
afternoon. >> they still can't bring themselves to admit that the affordable care act is working. they said nobody would sign up. they were wrong about that. they said it would be unaffordable for the country. they were wrong about that. they were wrong to keep trying to repeal a law that is working when they had no alternative answer for millions of americans with pre-existing conditions who'd be denied coverage again. or every woman who'd be charged more for just being a woman again. >> they say it's working, really working past what is predicted. and republicans are retreating further and further into denial. the secret of why it worked. next. for car insurance today? yeah. i heard about progressive's "name your price" tool? i guess you can tell them how much you want to pay and it gives you a range of options to choose from. huh? i'm looking at it right now. oh, yeah? yeah. what's the... guest room situation?
12:15 am
the "name your price" tool, making the world a little more progressive. on buying a car for... when i was introduced to truecar,cess.. i didn't have to second guess myself. i felt more confident... in what i was doing. truecar made it very easy for me... to negotiate what i wanted, because i didn't really need to do any negotiating at all. i just knew from the get-go that i was... flat out getting a good deal. when you're ready to buy a car, save time, save money, and never overpay. visit truecar.com
12:16 am
he reminded his audience that russia's parliament has given him the authority to send
12:17 am
troops over the border even though he hopes he doesn't have to do that. president obama expressed skepticism russia would follow through on today's diplomatic deal and stay out of eastern ukraine but made it clear the u.s. will not be taking any kind of military action. >> i think i've been very clear that military options are not on the table in the ukraine. because this is not a situation that would be amenable to a clear military solution. >> the crisis in ukraine was not what brought president obama to the white house press room today. what did is good news. well, good news unless you wanted obama care to fail. we'll get to that, next. 
12:18 am
12:19 am
we now know that the number of americans who've signed up for private insurance in the marketplaces has grown to 8 million people. 8 million people. >> that today was the huge announcement for the president. a milestone for obamacare that critics thought could never happen. far surpassing the original target of 7 million sign-ups. but even more important news in that impromptu press conference today at the white house was the number of young people enrolled. 35% of people covered through the federal marketplace are under the age of 35. why is that so important? well, you may remember not so long ago, during the obamacare launch, the scary-sounding prospect of a death spiral. >> the exchanges don't work. and you wind up going into what they call sort of the insurance death spiral. >> what did you call it, death spiral? >> insurance death spiral. >> obamacare is going toward a death spiral. >> this is that death spiral. >> the death spiral. >> the death spiral. >> what's called an insurance death spiral. >> you get into what they call that death spiral.
12:20 am
>> this could be the beginning of the death spiral. >> it could potentially be the beginning of the death spiral. >> the architect of obamacare being interviewed by megyn kelly. she asked him is this the beginning of the so-called death spiral? >> is that the beginning of the so-called death spiral? >> and he said, "that could be the beginning of a death spiral." >> that could be the beginning of a death spiral. >> that's the death spiral. >> spiral. >> death spiral. only the old and sick would bother to enroll, critics said. and without the young to balance out the exchanges they would enter into -- say it with me. an actuarial death spiral. that was actually a possibility if young people did not sign up for the exchanges. but they did. today we now have these numbers. enough young people signed up and the critics were wrong again. the president today defiant about the law's success. >> but we now know for a fact that repealing the affordable care act would increase the deficit, raise premiums for millions of americans, and take
12:21 am
insurance away from millions more. i find it strange that the republican position on this law is still stuck in the same place that it has always been. they still can't bring themselves to admit that the affordable care act is working. >> the best chart to capture this news comes from judd legham of think progress. hey fox news, updated your obamacare chart for you. joining me now jonathan cohn, senior editor of "the new republic" and author of "sick," the untold story of america's health care crisis, the people who pay the price. jonathan, how big is this news today? >> it's pretty big. this is as good a day for the cause of health care reform i think that we've had since march of 2010, when president obama signed the law. >> wow. >> these are two very big thresholds. we know that the system works. the predictions were always, you know, 6 or 7 million people would sign up. and that's probably what it's going to end up at because the 8
12:22 am
million will fall down a little bit. some people won't pay. but we're going to be right on target for that. the mix looks good. it looks like young people are coming out, they're buying it. and it's just really -- it's validation of the idea that if you try to make insurance available to people at reasonable prices and you let them buy coverage don't discriminate against them on pre-existing conditions, people will take it. people want this. the idea works. >> sarah cliffs over at vox had this. she tweeted this as an obamacare enrollment projected versus actual and you can see what an amazing thing happened in march, april particularly. she said the reason this worked is because it's terrible to be uninsured and all the punditry and all the commentary that was particularly coming from the right was coming from people who had health insurance trying to predict what uninsured people will do. and it turns out uninsured people would like to be insured. >> right. i mean, the conversation up until very recently was all about people who had insurance and what they thought was going to happen to their coverage. and look, the way the law works, for some people who had
12:23 am
coverage, some people are ending up they have to pay more money because they were getting a discount because they were young and healthy or they were carrying around policy that's had big gaps in them. and there really are people like that. but that was the entire conversation. and lost in that conversation was the fact that you had millions and millions of americans with no insurance at all, not to mention the millions of americans who couldn't afford their insurance, the millions who had weak insurance that didn't cover them, and it was horrible. you walked around not knowing what would happen if you got sick. people really did go into financial distress. they went into bankruptcy. they had to make these excruciating decisions, do i pay my bills or do i pay my doctor. that's really bad. and if you give people a decent chance to escape that, they will. >> so the president today talked a bit about -- he talked a bit about the republicans moving on. he also talked about one aspect that we've been covering a lot, which is medicaid expansion. take a listen. >> states that have chosen not to expand medicaid for no other reason than political spite.
12:24 am
you have 5 million people who could be having health insurance right now at no cost to these states. zero cost to these states. other than ideological reasons. they have chosen not to provide health insurance for their citizens. that's wrong. it should stop. >> political spite. 5 million people who could have health insurance. i think that is exactly accurate. >> i was so glad to see the president bring that up, to be aggressive about that. i find it appalling that you have states -- and let's face it. these are the states with some of the most uninsured people in the country, places like texas and florida. all across the deep south. you have millions of people who desperately need this coverage. the federal government is putting the money on the table. the states have to do very little to get it. it is really shocking that you have governors and state lawmakers who are turning this money away. it doesn't make good economic
12:25 am
sense. these are jobs in their states. they're turning down the money. but more importantly, i just don't understand the morality of it. there's no question that when people get on medicaid at the very least they're more financially secure. this is a known thing. and these lawmakers are basically saying to their own people we are not going to help you because we want to make a point. we don't want to help you because we are so opposed to this idea. and i just -- i find it appalling. >> it is stupid. it is appalling. and it is shameful. i have been surprised, actually, that states have done this. but there you have it. jonathan cohn from "the new republic." thank you. >> thanks. coming up, when chris christie channels fox news, it sounds like this. >> we're turning into a paternalistic entitlement society, and the american people no longer believe that this is a place where only their willingness to work hard and to act with honor and integrity and ingenuity determines their success in life.
12:26 am
then we'll have a bunch of people sitting on a couch waiting for the next government check. >> that was governor chris christie two years ago. it doesn't seem like he's changed his mind when it comes to feeding poor people in his state. i'll explain. and chef tom colicchio will be my guest ahead.
12:27 am
12:28 am
12:29 am
while everyone was cheering the bipartisan budget deal, poor people along the east coast were not.
12:30 am
as part of the deal $8.7 billion was cut from the food stamp program. the cuts came from tweaking the formula that calculates how much benefits poor folks get. the old system gave certain households an automatic boost if their food stamp benefits of up to $90 a month if those households also participated in a program that provides home heating assistance to the poor. poor households only needed to get $1 in home heating assistance from their state to qualify. republicans and some democrats consider that a loophole. which states were exploiting by giving a dollar to get more in food stamps for their residents. so congress changed the rule. now states would need to provide at least $20 in home heating assistance for residents to qualify for the added food stamp benefits. congress figured the states wouldn't pony up the extra money. but then a funny thing happened. many of the states whose poor residents are still poor and are losing out as a result of the cuts, they rebelled. the governors of at least eight
12:31 am
states, montana, connecticut, massachusetts, new york, oregon, pen, rhode island, and vermont expanded their heating aid in order to maintain food stamp benefits for their poorer citizens. this move did not sit well with house speaker john boehner. >> since the passage of the farm bill, states have found ways to cheat once again on signing up people for food stamps. i would hope that the house would act to try to stop this cheating and this fraud from continuing. >> for governors this wasn't about cheating. it was about maintaining a lifeline for poor people who desperately needed the assistance. and it wasn't just democrats. pennsylvania's republican governor tom corbett, a tea party ally, is one of the governors who moved to preserve food stamp benefits for his state. now let's take another look at that map. most of the states that made the move to maintain food stamp benefits are concentrated in one region, the northeast. but there is one state in that region, a state that a governor often claims to put his own people above politics, that notably has not.
12:32 am
>> i've got a job to do here in new jersey that's much bigger than presidential politics. and i could care less about any of that stuff. i have a job to do. if you think right now i give a damn about presidential politics, then you don't know me. >> the same governor chris christie who professed to be disgusted when congress initially did not approve billions in sandy aid has been silent when it comes to finding a way to keep an estimated 106,000 new jersey residents from losing out on food stamps. of course, unlike helping people affected by sandy, getting food stamps is politically toxic for republicans. the last thing chris christie wants to be talking about as he eyes a presidential run is how he expanded food stamps in his state. we reached out to governor christie's office about this and received a fact sheet in response that did not address the issue. joining me now, tom colicchio, chef, owner of craft's restaurants, also lead judge on bravo's "top chef." you've been on the war path about these cuts. you've been going around. have you personally been surprised that governors have
12:33 am
said you know what, we need these benefits for the poor folks in our state, we're going to pony up the money to make sure they get instituted? >> yeah. first of all, chris, thanks for drawing attention to this because i think so much attention has been put on bridgegate. and i would suggest this is more important. there are people inconvenienced in traffic that were stuck on the bridge for four days. but this is affecting 160,000 households every single day. so i'd actually say this is more like fridgegate and i'm glad you're paying attention to it. yeah, i'm really disappointed. first governor cuomo was the first governor to step in and sort of reinstate these cuts, and i was really surprised at governor christie. i was invited to spend a day at a hunger conference in new jersey in september. and i spent about an hour on stage with the governor in a panel discussion. >> about these -- >> about these issues. about school lunch program. about snap and about the benefits of snap. and he seemed really amenable to a lot of these issues we were talking to him. in fact, i was very pleased at the end of this. i was really surprised at this. and what really surprised me is he really sort of responded to the economic benefits of the
12:34 am
food stamp program. and so the economic benefits here, for an additional $3.2 million it would bring an additional $172 million into the economy of new jersey. so i'm really surprised that he wouldn't do this. >> the state would pony up an extra 3.2 million, it would bring in about $172 million in economic activity. >> add that multiplier effect, you have about $300 million into the economy of new jersey. so i'm really surprised that he's not doing it. >> so why isn't he doing it? >> i really don't know. i reached out to him to talk about this. he, you know, said he'd call me back, and i haven't received a phone call yet. this was about a month ago. i know, listen, he's busy, and i don't expect that he has to make time for me. i'm not nearly that arrogant. but i think that he's really letting down 160,000 families in new jersey. and just the fact they're living in new jersey in the tri-state area. if they are living in connecticut, in new york, they would actually receive these benefits. >> tom corbett in pennsylvania,
12:35 am
this is right across the border from jersey, this is a guy who got elected based on tea party support. he's a republican. i don't like basically any of his policies. he's pursued a whole bunch of stuff. if tom corbett could step up and do the right thing, that says something about how important this is, how important tom corbett thinks it is to the folks in pennsylvania and about bucking the -- bucking his own party. >> yeah. again, it's really surprising. especially since the governor right now -- i think he would benefit from reaching across the aisle and at least giving the appearance that he's willing to work on tough issues in new jersey. so i'm not sure why he's doing it. you know, maybe he has political aspirations beyond his current office. i'm not sure if he still does. and perhaps that's why he's doing it. i mean, boehner came out strong and he said this was another -- more fraud in the system. this isn't fraud. >> well, respond to that. you've seen exactly what the rhetoric on the right is about food stamps. >> it's all about fraud and about people gaming the system. you know what? follow the money on food stamps.
12:36 am
where is this money going? you think it's going to poor people's pockets? no, it's going for food for them. where is that money going? it's getting spent. it's going back into the communities. it's going to food companies. it's going to supermarkets. it's going to grocery stores. going to farmer's markets. to farmers. just follow the money through. this isn't a giveaway. this is a hit on the stimulus that we should be happy to do, especially right now when we're trying to get the economy going. i'm not sure why he's doing this. i don't get it. again, i'm surprised. i talked to some hunger advocates in new jersey. they think perhaps maybe that there's the legislature in new york will sort of work through this and he doesn't have to do an executive order, he could just sign a bill and -- >> but he could do it if he wanted to. >> he could. >> he could sign an executive order and do it. >> again, milloy did it. cuomo did it. >> corbett did it. he could do it. chef tom colicchio, thanks a lot. coming up, a shocking report in the "new york times" says police completely botched the investigation into rape
12:37 am
allegations against the best college football player in the country. we'll bring you that story with the attorneys advising that football player's family ahead.
12:38 am
12:39 am
12:40 am
back in 2012 the first presidential election post citizens united, there was a lot of confusion out there about super pacs. there was one person who illustrated better than anybody exactly how preposterous the rules to prevent those super pacs, those independent lightly regulated entities that can take unlimited donations from coordinating with actual campaigns. >> can i run for president and keep my super pak? >> you can't have the pac. you could have it run by somebody else. but someone who you would not be coordinating with. >> is being business partners a problem? >> being business partners does not count as coordination legally. >> can i legally hire stephen's current super pac staff to produce these ads that will be in no way coordinated with stephen?
12:41 am
>> yes. >> well, today brings news of something almost as preposterous as that. right now in oregon there's a pitched primary battle for the republican senate nomination between these two people you see there on your screen. monica wehby, a neurosurgeon, an establishment favorite. and state representative jason conger, who in the latest poll fared better against merkley than miss weber did. she was behind 46% to 34%. but then conger got hammered by this $100,000 ad buy. >> republican jason conger voted five times with democrats for oregon's obamacare. jason. republicans don't like it when you vote that way. so now we're going to vote no on jason conger. >> paid for by -- >> if he votes like that in salem, imagine how he will vote in congress.
12:42 am
>> not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. >> that was a real ad. that wasn't a spoof. that ad was run not by the wehby campaign but by a vote that's called if he votes like that in salem imagine wheel do in congress. longest name for a super pac ever. and do you know who gave a sizable chunk of money to that -- of that money to that super pac? this man. timber magnate andrew miller, who reportedly is romantically involved with none other than wehby. today miller defended the ad buy saying, "from the outside i can see the optics would appear otherwise and i know some folks appear to think there must be a smoking gun of coordination there and i would welcome the inspection." i mean, he's right. why can't a wealthy guy go about and buy something nice for the special someone in his life without everyone getting so suspicious? 
12:43 am
12:44 am
12:45 am
12:46 am
there was a time when all eyes were on jameis winston and the florida state university football team. winston was college football's breakout star last year. two-sport athlete sports writers have said was absurdly talented and did everything right. leading up to the acc title game in november there was still a question whether winston would even play because a prosecutor was trying to decide whether to charge him with rape. >> the latest on the sexual assault allegations against jameis winston. the florida state football star who is a heisman trophy candidate. prosecutors say they will
12:47 am
announce today whether they will bring charges. >> ultimately, florida prosecutor willie megs announced he would not be charging the 19-year-old quarterback with a crime. winston would go on to become the youngest person to ever win the heisman trophy and then lead florida state to a national championship. well, now a blockbuster report from the "new york times" shows an insane series of errors and missteps into that rape investigation and paints a picture of an operation that was bungled from the very start. >> if it had been done right from the get-go, we might -- i'm not saying we'd have a different answer or different result, but we would certainly have more clarity. >> winston was accused of raping his victim, a fellow florida state student, in december of 2012. instead of conducting a prompt and thorough interview with winston, the "times" reports, "the police didn't even attempt to talk with him for nearly two weeks and never obtained his dna." the officer leading the investigation decided against it. the accuser's lawyer said the officer told her that testing winston's dna might generate publicity.
12:48 am
winston's dna was eventually collected more than 300 days after he was accused. it matched the dna found on the victim's clothing. the "times" investigation also points out the university knew about the rape accusation early in january 2013. even so, the school did nothing about it, allowing winston to play the full season without having to answer any questions. i'll be talking to the attorney who was advising jameis winston's family about all this next.
12:49 am
12:50 am
12:51 am
jameis, what's the last month been like for you as news of the investigation was sharing headlines with your on-the-field performance? >> it helped our team. because florida state has just been known for taking the game off. but we came together. everybody had my back. we knew that it was going to be on and we knew that people was going to try to get us. and we did great. >> and jameis, how come you
12:52 am
decided not to talk during the process on thursday? jameis, congratulations. >> joining me now to discuss this case, political analyst, contributor to the grio, survivor of sexual assault. mike pesca, host of the new slate podcast the gist with mike pesca which is excellent. you should check it out. and sports attorney david cornwell who's advising the family of jameis winston. david, let me start with you. i have to say the facts as presented in the "new york times" and i should say florida state has pushed back, they've issued a statement taking issue with some of the things in that. but i look at that and i just cannot believe what happened. i mean, jameis winston was identified by this person who is alleging an unbelievably serious crime and is not contacted by the police for two weeks? for two weeks and then is contacted by phone? >> well, listen, you know, chris, one of the things about "the new york times" piece is that it doesn't tell all of the story. and it didn't include all of the story and walt knew that he
12:53 am
couldn't include all of the story because the university is under certain privacy obligations with respect to both jameis and the young lady. but let me just say this. listen, i'm a father, a son, and a brother. so sexual assault is a vicious crime. but the only thing that's equally vicious is a false accusation of sexual assault. there are facts -- >> are you saying there's a false accusation in this case? you're saying the accusation is false? >> absolutely. without any reservation, jameis winston did not sexually assault this young lady. and the facts support that. >> why was it that the two people that witnessed this, his two friends, one of whom apparently was taping this encounter, what happened to that tape and why didn't we hear from those two? why weren't they investigated or interviewed by law enforcement until an affidavit was provided by them backing up jameis's story?
12:54 am
>> well, i can't tell you why or how the investigation was conducted. what i can tell you is that the investigation, no matter how it was conducted, won't change the facts. it won't change the fact that jameis did not sexually assault this woman. there are facts that are not known to the public that will become known presumably when her opportunistic lawyers finally file their lawsuit that will demonstrate that her reaction was not consistent with the victim of sexual assault. now, that's not attacking -- that's not attacking the victim. >> david. >> that's just acknowledging -- >> you just called her lawyers -- >> -- don't support the assertion. >> i want to bring serena and mike into this. you're a lawyer and i believe in vigorous defense of the accused. i believe in our system of justice in terms of presumption of innocence in a courtroom. but this seems to me this is how it always goes. let me show you something. let me give you some statistics. okay?
12:55 am
this is number of reported sexual assault cases at public universities with enrollments between 30,000 and 60,000 students. cal state fullerton, two. florida state, 14. uc berkeley, 83. we're talking 30,000 to 60,000 people. do you believe those for a second? >> no. and the reason why people don't report is exactly what we're seeing -- the reason why is because of what happened here in florida state. because schools are not on the side of the students. just an anecdote. i have a friend who went to the university of north carolina. she now is a campus activist. but when she reported her rape to the administrator, they said, annie, rape is like a football game. you should review the things that you did to see if you would have made different choices. and instead of supporting students who come forward to report, you're interrogating the victim. and that's what is happening here. we're questioning her decisions and her choices and not jameis's choices. and that's the bottom line here. what did he do that night and was that illegal. and that was not looked into by the detective at all.
12:56 am
>> mike. >> i'm interested. i'd like to ask mr. cornwell. he uses the phrase that she wasn't consistent. and i've read all the reports. and maybe you can say that there was a difference of opinion about consent. but i haven't seen anything that indicates that she wasn't consistent the entire time from 3:00 a.m. afterwards when she told a friend till she didn't know it was jameis winston for about a month. then she identified him. and even though the police said she no longer wanted to go forward with her case no, one has ever said anything about inconsistency. what's inconsistent? >> well, i'll tell you one thing that's inconsistent. that even though she is now claiming sexual assault, when the two roommates, one of whom was taping -- tried to tape the encounter, when they came into the room she got up and shushed them out of the room and closed the door. now, that's not consistent with an allegation of sexual assault. you asked me. i'll answer the question. >> okay. >> here's -- wait a minute. one more thing. the other issue is we cannot assume or allege that jameis winston is guilty of sexual
12:57 am
assault. he's found not to -- he wasn't even charged. but based on what goes on at the university of california berkeley. that's just irresponsible. >> no, i'm -- >> statistics are what they are. but that doesn't mean that jameis sexually assaulted this young lady. >> i don't think anybody here -- >> i agree with that. >> no one here knows what happened. but what we're saying is when someone comes forward with serious allegations of a crime that the police are supposed to investigate. they didn't even look at the surveillance video to find out who she left with. and they would have been able to identify him even sooner and get his dna. which they later found did match. so i think that -- >> the dna issue is a red herring. he admits to consensual sex. >> right. but there is videotape of the encounter, then wouldn't that prove that it did or did not happen? and that was deleted evidence because the police didn't do their job from -- >> david, from my perspective, from the perspective here of let's say as you allege, you assert, that your client is guilty -- is innocent of this.
12:58 am
that this was not sexual assault. from the perspective of an outside observer on this it seems to me that the best case scenario for jameis as he goes forward into a career is to not have a cloud of suspicion and to have an investigation that crossed every t, that dot every i, that left no suspicion that he was getting treated well because he was a star football player so that people could look at the record of that investigation and all of the steps police took and all of the steps university took and say you know what, they played this one by the book there, must not have been enough evidence. instead what we have is a record that is shot through with holes that leaves people to think that that is not what happened. >> he might be an innocent man who benefited from a shoddy investigation. but it was a shoddy investigation, innocent or not. go ahead. >> as i said from the beginning, i'm not here to defend an investigation. and chris, you are absolutely right. the only reason that i'm here is because the investigation left questions that should have been resolved with the finding that he should not have been charged.
12:59 am
and the only reason we're having this conversation is because the investigation left some questions open. but it doesn't change the fundamental facts. >> that's notable. i mean, jameis winston's defender is pointing to the shoddiness of the investigation. if you want to talk about the big picture, putting aside the specifics, i mean, that would seem to be agreeing with this overall question of what the tallahassee police was doing and what goes on all the time on college campuses. >> you made this point too. this gets to be about big football programs and it's not just big football programs. >> no, it's not about football. it's not about college. it's not about the military. this is a cultural problem. we have a problem with rape culture in this country. we are not teaching young people about consent, about healthy masculinity or any of the things that lead them into healthy intimate relationships as opposed to situations where people leave thinking that they have been sexually assaulted or have been sexually assaulted. so we have a cultural problem. it's not a football problem. it's not a sports problem. cultural. >> zerlina maxwell from the grio, mike pesca and david cornwell.
1:00 am
thank you for joining us. >> my pleasure. >> that is all for this evening. the "rachel maddow show" starts right now. good evening, rachel. >> good evening, chris. and thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. this is the infiniti q70. this is the honda crv. this is an audi that's called the s4. this is the lincoln mks not to be confused with the lincoln mkz. this is the bmw x6m. this is a kia called the k900. behold the mazda cx5. this is a mercedes called the slk55amg. this is the ford f-150. fx4. which is what i have in the driveway at home. and don't get me wrong. i love cars. i love cars. i love cars too much. but once upon a time, cars had names.

16 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on